nationfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Government
This forum is a forum for discussing the make-up of the Government of Lovia following the Federal elections. Topics may include the makeup of the government of the Congress and which MOTCs will receive control of which ministries. The current talks are for the 2013 Congress. Ministries You can take a look at User:TimeMaster/Ministries or the individual ministry pages for an overview of what the duties of each ministry are. Afterward, sign up for ministries that you are interested in below: *Prime Minister **TimeMaster **OWTB **... *Ministry of Agriculture **-Sunkist- **Wabba The I **... *Ministry of Commerce **Happy65 **... *Ministry of Culture **OWTB **horton11 **Wabba The I **... *Ministry of Defense **Kunarian **Quarantine Zone **Granero **... *Ministry of Education **TimeMaster **Granero **OWTB **... *Ministry of Energy and Resources **-Sunkist- **... *Ministry of Environment **77topaz **... *Ministry of Family and Youth **OWTB ***Did you just add this ministry? Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:00, January 23, 2013 (UTC) **... *Ministry of Finance **TimeMaster **... *Ministry of Foreign Affairs **77topaz **horton11 **Wabba The I **... *Ministry of Health **Crystalbeastdeck09 **Quarantine Zone **Granero **horton11 **... *Ministry of Justice **Happy65 **... *Ministry of Labour **Crystalbeastdeck09 **... *Ministry of Tourism and Sport **77topaz **Wabba The I **... *Ministry of Transportation **Happy65 **Wabba The I **... *Speaker of the Congress **TimeMaster **Semyon **... New Ministries Alright, so Oos seems to want to add a Family and Youth ministry (though possibly could include elderly as well). Sounds good to me, but perhaps we could add a couple others as well? This might include Communications (for running the state media and maintaining telephone and internet), Science/Research (self-explanatory, could also merge into Education), Infrastructure (non-transportation or sport related infrastructure, urban development), Security (or Interior) (sort of like defense but more like public safety that isn't law enforcement, could also merge into Defense or Justice), Industry (could also work in Commerce or another), and the Sea (self-explanatory, could merge into Energy and Resources or possibly Environment). Anyway, that's just a list I made up. Would anyone be interested in making some a reality? —TimeMaster (talk • ) 21:07, January 23, 2013 (UTC) First time i was in government i did a condesment act, later replead, but i think still needed in a small country such as lovia we would need to combine departments. I think this would do. If we ever did Question time i'd like that Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:21, January 23, 2013 (UTC) *Prime Minister *Agriculture and Rural affairs *Engery, Environment and Resources *Defense *Commerce and Finance *Education and Research *Foriegn Affairs *Health *Justice *Labour, Infrastructure and Urban development *Transportation *Tourism and Sport *Family, Youth and Elderly *Culture I think that we could combine departments. (I want smaller government in general.) I think we should have transportation cover city infrastructure too. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 22:11, January 23, 2013 (UTC) I would never group environment and agriculture together. They are the opposite... --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:43, January 24, 2013 (UTC) I'm with Oos on that one actually... They are different. I think that finance and commerce could be put together though. Also, Ministry of Energy and Resources and Ministry of Environment, I think could be put together. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 17:08, January 24, 2013 (UTC) Opposition What would anyone think of the idea of having a formal government/opposition? I was thinking it might give people a chance to have a position that they like, rather than something frankly dull like 'Commerce' or 'Energy and Resources,' because there would be two people for each, the government 'minister' and an opposition 'shadow minister,' particularly because there's a lot of people to share posts around this year. I think we could make sure the opposition wouldn't be excluded, it would be more of a roleplay IC thing. If you hate the idea, that's ok. --Semyon 23:39, January 22, 2013 (UTC) I agree but also make sure government gets things done as well, we've governments only passing some minor bills or one or two major acts. Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:43, January 22, 2013 (UTC) Interesting idea, but then we'd have to divide into official governments and oppositions, and I think it might not work out so well. Besides, I wanted to make the real (not shadow) ministries more important, and since shadow ministries would do nothing (except criticize?), it could create problems for radicals or other opposition who wanted to be in government. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 23:48, January 22, 2013 (UTC) To legitimise the idea of opposition they would have to also work towards the same goal as the non-shadow minister. While the idea of opposition is a great idea, and in a way I'd support it if we made the opposition part of the government not just cast outs. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 23:51, January 22, 2013 (UTC) Scruintize :P not criticize. I don't think it creates outcasts but those of the same ideology or goal working together to form the government and in turn helping lovia. Shadow ministers would be nice except we don't realy have chat, to argue over government policy unless we schedual something in chat and post it later in the first chamber... Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:55, January 22, 2013 (UTC) Sidenote: What will happen to the Departments? Will the be outphased by the ministries? Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:00, January 23, 2013 (UTC) They already were. ;) —TimeMaster (talk • ) 02:32, January 23, 2013 (UTC) Only a little bit confused beacuse there is Department pages still in present tense and no reference to them being phased out. Marcus/Michael Villanova 03:11, January 23, 2013 (UTC) Some of them are in past tense and have reference to being phased out, though the rest still need to be updated. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 03:20, January 23, 2013 (UTC) @TM and Kunarian: well, I think we could avoid making the opposition 'cast-outs.' :) OOC, the minister and shadow minister would simply be two users providing different ideological solutions to the same problems. The only difference would be that officially IC the minister would be superior to his shadow counterpart, but that would hardly be relevant from a day-to-day law-making point of view, particularly as most people didn't do a huge amount with their ministries last year. --Semyon 14:35, January 23, 2013 (UTC) Coalition - Government Any chance of a coalition surrounding ideology or some concept? Marcus/Michael Villanova 03:29, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :Confederalism? Hoffmann KunarianTALK 04:05, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :You and Me. Oos? Or is he more Pro-autonomy for Oceana? Marcus/Michael Villanova 04:12, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::He's Confederate by definition, I don't know whether he'd call himself that but he's pro-autonomy for Oceana and pro-States. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 04:20, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::Oos will run for PM and Culture. Happy65 Talk CNP ''' ' 07:57, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :::Oos is indeed for more state power and an even more elevated position for Oceana, if State Laws will not be returned to all the states. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:01, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :::I think we have a coalition in progress....ANd being the three largest parties we'd JUST get about 50+ seats. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:54, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::::We'd get a nice centrist government in any case :) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 15:56, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::::Can we talk serious? Is this an official agreement? The LCR (Left-Center-right) coaliton. Would be nice. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:58, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::::Also add in any other smaller parties your bringing like NPO so our numbers are increased. Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:06, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :::::I'm still not totally sold on this just yet. If we go ahead we're likely to isolate the pro-centralization parties, most notably SLP. HORTON11: • 16:08, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::::::We wouldn't isolate the SLP. Confederalism is the basis for this coalition, there are other sections of policy to debate too. Also we aren't going to isolate anyone from the Ministries so they have no worries, you can trust me of all people after my arguments before hand about inclusion. Hoffmann Kunarian'TALK' 16:28, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :::::::That's only my personal position, I will have to ask the Daembrales and Granero before it becomes an SLP policy. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:52, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :::::I understadn this, but the people have spoken and maybe we won't have a full blown coaliton per se but we want action done on a confederate front. Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:13, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::::::Whatever happened to that SLP-Labour-CCPL coalition you were so interested in. I would still like to pursue that. Like Semyon said the only thing we have in common with CNP is confederation and I fear this is not enough. HORTON11: • 16:16, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :::::::I hardly think that Confederalism is a small thing that CNP and Labour share, admittedly we aren't very close on economic issue but we do share a similar social policy. Getting powers to the States will not be easy, and I think that if we have the CNP and Labour working together we really do bridge the gap and show unity in government. Hoffmann Kunarian'TALK' 16:24, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :::::::We could start to pass moderate ecnomic policies such as Kunarian's tax act, and start a diolauge on it and get taxes passed which would be landmark and pass major confederate a social bills. Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:25, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::That's the thing. If Labour and CNP can achieve at least something together, then anything is possible for Lovia. But if we can make some compromises on points economy vs. health and welfare, it could actually work. HORTON11: • 16:27, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :::::::::I think that we can easily work together on the economy, working against multi-nationals and monopolies (and I actually mean it this year, not just posing and doing nothing). Health and welfare will be harder but we will work it out. 16:31, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::::Why don't you guys just vote on CCPL's policies? They're right in the middle :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 16:32, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::::Just going to say. It's a broad coalition so not one side will be overpowering the other. Again sign up any smaller parties you control. Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:35, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::::That's one idea :L I'll talk more later, I have an appointment. Hoffmann Kunarian'TALK' 16:36, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :::::::::::I was hoping we could do a tradeoff and use CNP-minded policies for the economy and Labour-minded policies for healthcare. HORTON11: • 16:39, January 23, 2013 (UTC) Confederate Coalition (name later) *Labour Party *NPO *Conservative Nationalist Party *CCPL (I guess... :P) *Parti fo Nesavicelost 'Oshenna (under conditions) *CDP I don't want to blow holes in the idea from the start, but Labour and CNP share pretty much nothing in common, apart from the confederate thing I suppose. --Semyon 16:07, January 23, 2013 (UTC) : CDP is confederate also...--Quarantine Zone (talk) 18:26, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::Maybe you could join? :) Hoffmann Kunarian'TALK' 21:58, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :::I'll join i guess. Typically I'd avoid LP though...--Quarantine Zone (talk) 22:07, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :::In real talk, I'm not pro-CDP. The party loves to say there "far-right but not facist) which in all honesty isn't my forte. I like CNP (center-right) and CCPL (center, -right) Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:17, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::::In general I'm farther right than most people. In America I wouldn't actually be very far right. I'd be pretty far right, but there are some laissez-faire people in America...I'd consider laissez-faire farther right than me. The only place in the world that meets my ideology is Texas, so I don't expect to get much support except from America :3 The idea of the coalition though is confederacy, so if we avoid other topics then were good.--Quarantine Zone (talk) 22:21, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::::That, QZ is a good question, because I think this should be a governing coalition of parties around support our states but also centrist economic policies, and socially liberal social policies. Which is moderate and allows us to get things done? What does the CNP, CCPL think? Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:26, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :::::Confederalism (which as I say again is a hefty task) should be our main focus. Putting too much on our plate will make us ineffective, we should pass vital legislation for governing (such as tax and budgeting as well as basic economic and social legislation we are missing) and focus on devolution. Economic policy is impossible with out the former. Hoffmann Kunarian'TALK' 22:35, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :::::I think a CNP-LP-CCPL plus the smaller parties we're affiliated with could do this. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:51, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::::::So you're up for a confederate reform and essential laws based coalition are you? Hoffmann Kunarian'TALK' 22:55, January 23, 2013 (UTC) (reset) I don't think we should put any stress on economic or social policies in this coalition. It's too broad of a spectrum to put any tag on it, even centrist. We should focus on confederalism, not economics or social policy. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 22:59, January 23, 2013 (UTC) : I don't think Just confederalism is a governing policy. I think if we use different ideologies close to the center we can accomplish more than a central goal. @Kun - Can we draw out a coalition agreement? Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:04, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::I will, however I think it's best if we focus on bringing Confederate Reform and establishing essentials. Our actual policy on these essentials will probably be centrist but as a coalition we will have to sit down and debate it. We need to establish a way to govern as I say before we actually can govern. Hoffmann Kunarian'TALK''' 23:08, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::User:Crystalbeastdeck09/Coalition Agreement are we a one issue coalition then disband? Or an actual governing coalition? Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:35, January 24, 2013 (UTC) :::We have three issues on that board. I think that's enough to have a coalition...--Quarantine Zone (talk) 17:05, January 24, 2013 (UTC) :::Yes, but again to be honest your a bit far-right and our coalition would be governing in the center and would be compromising a bunch of your views in the light (if this forms the government) we propose a bill and it passes. Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:39, January 24, 2013 (UTC) Central Coalition (not real) *SLP *No one else Is anyone else here against decentralization? :3 —TimeMaster (talk • ) 22:00, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :Haaha :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:44, January 24, 2013 (UTC) Socially Conservative Coalition It would probably be CDP, CCPL, CNP, and LMP, but I suppose it could have more or less parties. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 02:24, January 24, 2013 (UTC) *CDP *... I don't think CNP is socially conservative. MCP relatively is, though. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 02:52, January 24, 2013 (UTC) I guess they are more libertarian, but they're nationalist... I never know... MCP supports euthanasia, abortion, and prostitution, and they want less laws on tobacco regulation. They're definitely more closer to center than conservative, hence Moderate Centrist Party... --Quarantine Zone (talk) 03:06, January 24, 2013 (UTC) MCP is pretty center though, def not to the conservative area of social policies. I think those two are already signed up for a government coalition. Or at least I hope, they look at it as a governing coalition which will have a PM and have a majority in government... Marcus/Michael Villanova 03:12, January 24, 2013 (UTC) :Are you not able to to join multiple coalitions? --Quarantine Zone (talk) 03:15, January 24, 2013 (UTC) Is this socially conservative or ethically conservative? --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:45, January 24, 2013 (UTC) Oos, what is your definition of socially conservative? Anyway, I think QZ means socially conservative = ethically conservative. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 12:05, January 24, 2013 (UTC) :Socially conservative = minimal government/social security. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:23, January 24, 2013 (UTC) :@QZ - NO! A coalition is an alliance of Parties in a legislature or Congress who together work on common goals to form a government majority, not just random alliances...@Confederate Coalition - I hope we stay as an actual governing coalition!?!?Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:19, January 24, 2013 (UTC) Category:Forum Category:Government